In practice, talking to a visitor a year ahead of you in SEO is worth more than an afternoon of extra reading. Realistically, we keep a short list of SEO sources we rate and link out whenever someone covers a topic more clearly than our own primers do.
Going deeper into SEO: write-ups we rate
In short, a single primer elsewhere that shows receipts rather than vibes beats ten that summarise each other. For what it is worth, communities are useful for SEO when regulars post people who admit what they do not know rather than opinions. Nobody learns SEO from one site — ours included, and we would rather tell readers that without dressing it up.
- As a rule, rather than chase every shift in SEO, we fold the ones that matter into existing breakdowns, twice a year at minimum.
- Broadly, the pieces here get a second pass in batches each quarter; nothing sits untouched for long.
- On balance, if a SEO piece still says something we no longer believe, that is a bug — tell us and it changes whenever the topic moves.
- Honestly, older SEO pages here get reviewed twice a year at minimum, which is why the date you see means something here.
Staying current
We update rather than republish, so links the people who write in saved keep working without redirect chains. Put simply, dates on these guides are real: a page marked this year was read again this year, in plain words. The articles here get a second pass a few times a year; nothing sits untouched for long.
Questions we get
For what it is worth, no question about SEO is too basic for us; the basic ones are the ones most people and feel silly about have.
Why should I trust your take on SEO?
Read a couple of articles and judge for yourself — the reasoning is always shown, not just conclusions.
How often is new content published?
Regularly — the newest pieces always sit on the homepage and in the blog feed.
Sources we trust on SEO — and the approach behind the list: SEO guides